That is a good article and pretty much sums up what I thought. The Seahawks trained on how to beat Manning and the Denver offense in this specific game. It looked like Denver's plan was to play they way that got them to the Super Bowl and not alter their game to fit the Seahawks. The Hawks were well prepared to play the Broncos, not just Manning.

BINGO! Denver's yards after the catch are awesome and Manning is a sniper at short distances. If you neutralize the long ball and prevent any yards after the catch, he's essentially got nothing. And as far as a run game...FUGGITABOUTIT! Seattle planned well and executed even better.

It looked like Seattle showed up for a Superbowl while Denver was looking for a pre-season rematch.

Click to expand...

Spot on Evan. Many folks think that the real Super Bowl was two weeks earlier when Seattle met SF for the NFC Championship game. Now THAT was a hard-fought game, right down to the last meaningful play that thrust Richard Sherman onto the national stage.

The Pat.'s played a similar defense to Seattle and got torched. The Seahawks had better players on the field though. Additionally they had a lot of good players, especially on d-line where they could rotate through a cadre of skilled lineman, whereas the Pat's 2 d-ends (Jones and Ninkovich) played the most snaps at the position in the NFL.

The reason for all this is that they pay their QB $600,000 or so. Compare that with 18 mil. or so for Brady against the cap and you can go out and buy Bennett and Avril in hte off-season to pair with Clemons etc. You can go get a sppedy guy to to return kicks and run fly sweeps.

It wasn't any fantastic or genius coaching decisions, it was being able to pay your QB less that 1 million. He didn't make many plays, never throws on time and sometime seemingly refused actually trow at times, but he didn't turn it over and makes less than the 2nd string tailback. It's a huge advantage.

Spot on Evan. Many folks think that the real Super Bowl was two weeks earlier when Seattle met SF for the NFC Championship game. Now THAT was a hard-fought game, right down to the last meaningful play that thrust Richard Sherman onto the national stage.

K

Click to expand...

I often downplay my football followings and play the non caring ignoramus in the spirit of self deprecating humor... But I was saying leading up to the championship game that it was going to be the REAL Superbowl by quite a long shot, and that the Superbowl itself would be a near NFC (Hawks or 9ers) blowout of either of the AFC teams that would have made it.

I often downplay my football followings and play the non caring ignoramus in the spirit of self deprecating humor... But I was saying leading up to the championship game that it was going to be the REAL Superbowl by quite a long shot, and that the Superbowl itself would be a near NFC (Hawks or 9ers) blowout of either of the AFC teams that would have made it.

The Pat.'s played a similar defense to Seattle and got torched. The Seahawks had better players on the field though. Additionally they had a lot of good players, especially on d-line where they could rotate through a cadre of skilled lineman, whereas the Pat's 2 d-ends (Jones and Ninkovich) played the most snaps at the position in the NFL.

The reason for all this is that they pay their QB $600,000 or so. Compare that with 18 mil. or so for Brady against the cap and you can go out and buy Bennett and Avril in hte off-season to pair with Clemons etc. You can go get a sppedy guy to to return kicks and run fly sweeps.

It wasn't any fantastic or genius coaching decisions, it was being able to pay your QB less that 1 million. He didn't make many plays, never throws on time and sometime seemingly refused actually trow at times, but he didn't turn it over and makes less than the 2nd string tailback. It's a huge advantage.

Go Sox,
cds

Click to expand...

Charles, did you see the article/interview where Wilson was talking about being restricted to a preset number of throws? It makes a little more sense when you see him scramble and not dump the ball off when you take into account Carrol limits the number of times it goes air born.

The Pat.'s played a similar defense to Seattle and got torched. The Seahawks had better players on the field though. Additionally they had a lot of good players, especially on d-line where they could rotate through a cadre of skilled lineman, whereas the Pat's 2 d-ends (Jones and Ninkovich) played the most snaps at the position in the NFL.

The reason for all this is that they pay their QB $600,000 or so. Compare that with 18 mil. or so for Brady against the cap and you can go out and buy Bennett and Avril in hte off-season to pair with Clemons etc. You can go get a sppedy guy to to return kicks and run fly sweeps.

It wasn't any fantastic or genius coaching decisions, it was being able to pay your QB less that 1 million. He didn't make many plays, never throws on time and sometime seemingly refused actually trow at times, but he didn't turn it over and makes less than the 2nd string tailback. It's a huge advantage.

Go Sox,
cds

Click to expand...

I'm confused. So the Seattle win was due to better players? Or was it because they didn't spend $18MM on a quarterback? Or was it because there weren't any fantastic or genius coaching decisions? Or was it because Wilson managed to not turn the ball over despite never throwing on time and being underpaid?

Your buzzkill kinda sounds like you think they somehow managed to win in spite of themselves. For someone who said he'd be reluctantly rooting for the 'chickens', maybe we'd all be better off if you stuck to supporting your Sox.